[QUOTE='[RNZE]Sapper;6040580']You're not comparing apples with apples. It's like starting a fight on the street with the homeless pan handler that spat on your shoe. Sure you might win the fight, but you're still the loser in the end because the other guy has so much less to lose than you. If he pulls a knife that's different. Then it's "shoot him to the ground" time. But today, he's just spitting on your shoes. No point get a simple assault charge and lose your job over.
Make no mistake. The only winner in a Korean Civil war part deux is the Chinese and the Japanese. Not the Koreans.
Now the question is now far can this homeless guy push it. It's the same decision process with the Koreans. He spat on your shoes yesterday, now he's spitting on your fancy Armani pants. Do you give him a hiding today? And risk some one calling the cops? Or do you wait for him to spit in your face before you throw a left jab? Often you don't make the D till you make the D.[/QUOTE]
More turn the other cheek rhetoric. "Spit on your shoes". Are you freaking kidding? Sinking a naval vessel and bombarding an island with civilian and military occupants is an act of war. That bum has pulled the knife a long time ago. People have been killed in the name of "Warnings" and "Maritime boundaries", which by the way, are not supported by the international community. Your analogy is retarded, simply put.
02-19-2012
Ambassador
If any of you have forgotten, the two Koreas are already in a formal state of war, and intermittent 'acts of war' are, sadly, very unavoidable. We could damage NK's military momentarily and NK will merely give it a few years to recover and attack again, and the cycle continues. The best we can manage at this stalemate is to minimize unnecessary casualties to both sides as much as possible, until one day NK decides that its economic interests are too important to sacrifice for the sake of belligerence, or NK collapses, or we decide to initiate a full scale war and win, at a cost that would startle any military power on the planet short of utilizing WMD. The past 15 months have been a phase of recovery for both sides, until we inevitably enter another period of relapse in our relations. No one knows when the firefight will resume again, and this is not something that a disproportionate response in our past engagements could prevent. Our victories in the past with very high KD ratios did not prevent Cheonan and Yeonpyeong. But mysteriously, Roh's pro-North Korean diplomacy somehow did, at least for the short while that it lasted. Sadly it was also a measure that was not meant to be sustainable in the long-term.
[QUOTE=amer1can;6040615]More turn the other cheek rhetoric. "Spit on your shoes". Are you freaking kidding? Sinking a naval vessel and bombarding an island with civilian and military occupants is an act of war. That bum has pulled the knife a long time ago. People have been killed in the name of "Warnings" and "Maritime boundaries", which by the way, are not supported by the international community. Your analogy is retarded, simply put.[/QUOTE]
Then what are you implying? That the Koreans are [B]cowards[/B]? I say the NK actions are more like spitting in your face. That's assault in most jurisdictions. Perfectly justifiable in hitting back. Now if he spat in the face of a Hispanic illegal immigrant with the number 13 tattooed on his body. He's gonna get curb stumped. But say if he spat in the face of say, Kim, vice-president of a prestigious multirnational electronic manufacturer. Father of three. Sole income provider. With a new born baby girl called Janice. Mortgage payments due. And his boss is retiring next year which means he's finally in for that big promotion after all these years of hard work. Are you seriously gonna call him a [B]coward[/B], because he chose to wipe his face clean and extract himself from the danger? Really? Is he really lesser of a man then our MS13 friend? Because he didn't defend his honor with physical violence? Because he's got bigger problems? Because he can't take the chance of the homeless guy pulling a knife and get in a lucky stab? So what Kim's a black belt. So what the homeless guy is half drunk from sniffing glue.
How dare you imply that Kim is any lesser of a man? Think of Janice! You should be ashamed of yourself. Call your mother and tell her you're sorry!
02-19-2012
ISNJH
#ROK JCS tells VOA artillery drill has ended & S. Korean forces didn't fire towards the NLL. No reaction seen or heard from #DPRK
02-19-2012
ISNJH
So much for the North huffing and puffing, The ROK armed forces was not intimidated and did not back down and carried out their training!
02-20-2012
antman311
That's good news. The DPRK remains the laughing stock of the world.
02-20-2012
Ambassador
One of the NK military's proven edge is its element of surprise in a limited, localized conflict, as opposed to in a full-scale one where every one of their major movements are likely to be closely monitored. They are not likely to aggressively respond to this exercise at the precise moment that our military is at its highest level of alertness, especially with NK having loudly proclaimed just moments ago that it's going to do something about that.
But we already held exercises like this several times last year after Yeonpyeong. It's not unusual for NK to not do anything after each of its threats. NK prefers to attack us at moments that we least expect, without any sort of prior warning. Though the last time it attacked us after a sort of warning, NK miscalculated our resolve to counter-fire where as a result we probably devastated their fire bases more than they'd done damage to our civilian infrastructure in Yeonpyeong. NK is wise and prudent to feel hesitant about testing how much we'll be willing to strike back again this time.
Did you know though that one of the other reasons why we keep our counter-fire response to a minimum (other than de-escalating tensions as much as possible) is that we actually want to minimize casualties among the NK military personnel? In all our previous naval engagements we deliberately chose to avoid completely sinking NK vessels because we wanted the vessels to safely return home with the wounded who might have died in the water had the vessels sunk. I'm even thinking that it's highly possible that our artillery crew are ordered to deliberately scatter their fires with only one or two well-placed shots as a shock factor, killing or wounding a few and terrorizing the rest of the enemy unit to psychologically incapacitate them (just like us, most NK personnel are complete rookies with no battle experience, though with even less individual training, less equipment-based situational awareness, and perhaps less daring physical personality than our soldiers that make them more susceptible to a state of disinformation and panic). This is kind of tough military diplomacy of great delicacy that our personnel are trying to exercise. And it's also probably something that NK commanders sure do like to exploit and abuse, with NK military personnel forced to collaborate in their scheme as pawns. Most of them deserve much better than what they get, most of them don't even fight because they want to or because they have a choice. Most of us on both sides.
